Okay first things first: this is in reaction to the assassination attempt in Tucson AZ. If you're not hip to that story, some guy with a history of crazy bought a pistol and went to a political event and opened fire. Killed 6, wounded 14 others. His target was shot in the head but is still alive.
Now a simple question: would someone intending to murder as many people as possible care in the least if there was a law prohibiting him/her from having a firearm within 1000 feet of certain other people? HIS PLAN WAS TO MURDER PEOPLE! I'm having a hard time imagining that he would not have gone forward if it was illegal to get within 1000 feet of his intended victim.
This is just like the "no carrying within 1000 feet of a school", which doesn't convince someone with murder on their minds to leave the weapon at home. It'd be just another stupid law that law-abiding citizens would somehow have to work into their lives or potentially be in violation of for the most stupidest of reasons. For example you might easily find yourself within 1000 feet of these special people without any intent to be there. THEY went were you were, so maybe the law ought to say "special people are not allowed within 1000 feet of an armed citizen". Oh wait that won't work either because how can they know if I'm carrying or not?
Oh well. It's just grand-standing by a politician and it really doesn't affect me but it does piss me off. The reaction to the shooting in Tucson should be looking at the fact that the guy was friggin crazy. And to the fact that most states are piss-poor about getting "he's fucking crazy" into the NICS system where it needs to be. This shooter bought his gun legally, and I'm pretty sure he shouldn't have depending on how much crazy is in his background and whether or not that should have made it to the NICS system.
| « Squaw something truckstop, I-29-MO x79 | Why do they all have black cars? » |